Last Thought on Virtual Worlds (LIV Debate)

In his last post, Saul asks "Isn't there a case to be made for allowing virtual worlds to house such law-free transactions for willing players? Legal Entrepreneurs, or 'game administrators,' can offer alternative rules and even require that real bonds be posted and forefeited for violations."  Ifear I may disappoint him again by agreeing: Yes, people should be free to do this, and the law shouldn't get in the way.  But isn't this just a  traditional question of contract law?  In a sense, a contract is a virtual world; two people get together and agree on a set of relationships.  They each agree to play particular roles, particular characters (seller, buyer, etc.), subject to a set of penalties, or if they prefer, no set of penalties at all.  You can think of virtual worlds as form contracts, in which participants pick the contract by picking the virtual world.

From this perspective, whether we say that traditional law "regulates" virtual worlds or is a "law free zone" is really a question about how traditional questions of contract law or consent in criminal law apply in the specific case of virtual world computer programs.  I suspect the real issue there will be whether Terms of Use or social norms end up determining these sorts of defaults; I touch on this a bit in my paper but end up not reaching a real conclusion, in part because I think the jury is still out on how far the latter will evolve in a strong form as being separate from the former.